CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Olivia Sontag
In Marino v. State, 577 P.3d 992 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska held exculpatory evidence raised an issue of material fact and that a criminal defendant raising an untimely claim of newly discovered evidence of innocence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the outcome would be an acquittal. (Id. at 1010, 1024). In 1994, Marino was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder (Id. at 996). In 2018, Marino received a report excluding him from male DNA found on a vacuum cleaner handle, the likely murder weapon. (Id. at 1004). Marino filed for post-conviction relief, and the State submitted a motion for summary disposition arguing that the male DNA was irrelevant and the request was untimely. (Id. at 1005–06). The superior court granted the motion and dismissed Marino’s application. (Id. at 1006). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals of Alaska concluded the male DNA on the vacuum cleaner raised an issue of material fact with regard to Marino’s claim of innocence. (Id. at 1007). The court found it significant that unknown male DNA was found on the likely murder weapon, considering the vacuum was found in the victim’s all-female household. (Id. at 1007–08). The court found this DNA evidence was not cumulative, but represented new exculpatory evidence that could undermine the State’s case in new ways. (Id. at 1010). Regarding the issue of untimely appeal, after reviewing Alaskan legislative history, Alaskan Supreme Court precedent, other state’s jurisprudence, and United States Supreme Court precedent, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that to obtain an exception from the statute of limitation that would otherwise apply, a criminal defendant raising an untimely claim of newly discovered evidence of innocence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the outcome would be an acquittal. (Id. at 1023). The Court remanded the case to the superior court to conclude whether Marino met this standard. (Id. at 1024). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held exculpatory evidence raised an issue of material fact and that a criminal defendant raising an untimely claim of newly discovered evidence of innocence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the outcome would be an acquittal. (Id. at 1010, 1024).
